CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Edgeview Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received medicines as prescribed and were supported by enough staff. Inspectors found some unsafe environmental items and missing water temperature records, but the management team took immediate action.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward, but that rating is not stated in this report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward, but that rating is not stated in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward, but that rating is not stated in this report.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Governance checks did not always identify invalid restrictions, environmental hazards or communication gaps. Staff supervision was sporadic and some training was incomplete.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Edgeview Nursing Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found that leadership and checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 25 January and 1 February 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, staff and health professionals, and checked care files, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. People received medicines as prescribed, staffing was sufficient, risks to individuals were understood and safeguarding procedures were known. Inspectors found no evidence that the concern which led to the inspection had harmed anyone.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Checks did not always identify environmental hazards, outdated restrictions, incomplete handover information, irregular staff supervision and training still to be completed. The manager took some immediate action during the inspection.
The overall rating stayed Good because this inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The other areas were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward from the last inspection.
Medicines
Nursing staff were trained to give medicines, and inspectors found that people received them as prescribed. Instructions for medicines given when needed were detailed and personal to each person.
“The nursing staff ensured people received their medicine as prescribed.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including most one-to-one support hours. Recruitment checks were robust.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff.” from the report
Understanding individual risks
Staff understood people's needs and the steps needed to reduce individual risks. Health professionals confirmed that the home worked with them on support plans.
“People's individual risks were assessed, and staff had a good understanding of the risk reduction measures required to help keep people safe.” from the report
People's views
People, relatives and professionals were asked for feedback. People spoken to by inspectors were complimentary about the home and its management.
“People, relatives and professionals were encouraged to give feedback on care.” from the report
Environmental safety checks
seriousInspectors found an unlocked sluice room containing hazards, thickener that was not safely stored and no records showing that water temperatures had been checked. No one was found to have been harmed.
“For example, the sluice room contained hazards and was unlocked, drinks thickener had not been returned to safe storage, and water temperature checks were not being documented, meaning we could not be assured they were happening.” from the report
Restrictions and legal reviews
seriousSome reviews of restrictions and authorisations were needed. One fluid restriction was no longer medically necessary, and another record contained the wrong medicine dosage.
“However, we found reviews of people subject to DoLs were required.” from the report
Communication and management checks
needs fixingThe handover system was not always fully used, so important changes might not reach all staff. Staff supervision was sporadic, although its frequency was increasing.
“There was a handover system in place, however it was not always fully utilised.” from the report
Training
needs fixingSome staff needed to update safeguarding training, and some had not completed learning disability training. Staff spoken to still understood the safeguarding process.
“The training records indicated a number of staff needed to update their training, however all the staff we spoke with were able to explain the process they would follow if they became concerned.” from the report
- 01How have you checked that all restrictions and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations are still necessary and contain correct information?
- 02What has changed to keep the sluice room locked, store drinks thickener safely and record water temperature checks?
- 03How do you make sure important changes are recorded and passed on during staff handovers?
- 04What is the current plan for completing safeguarding and learning disability training, and for providing regular staff supervision?
- 05What are the current ratings and most recent findings for Caring, Effective and Responsive, which were not assessed in this inspection?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection, and the supported living premises and regulated activity were not reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 April 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Edgeview Nursing Home is Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with some concerns about the building and record keeping.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 4 February 2020. One inspector and a nurse specialist spoke with seven people, nine staff and reviewed care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were treated with respect, supported to make choices, given suitable care and helped to access health services and activities.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in February 2019. However, the building and location did not fully match best practice for people with learning disabilities or mental health needs. Some care reviews were not dated, and certain light-switch pull cords were not easy to clean.
Kind and respectful care
People appeared comfortable with staff. Staff knew people's interests, preferences and communication needs, and supported privacy and independence.
“People were relaxed in the presence of staff and there was evidence of warm and friendly relationships.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities, go out and maintain friendships. The home had dedicated activities staff and an activities room.
“People were supported by dedicated activities staff who were enthusiastic about their work in engaging people in activities and pastimes they enjoyed.” from the report
Good oversight
Managers were visible and approachable. The provider used audits, surveys and incident reviews to monitor care and make improvements.
“The provider had a range of effective quality monitoring arrangements in place.” from the report
Building and location
needs fixingThe home was not designed in line with best practice guidance for people with learning disabilities or mental health needs. Its hilltop location and distance from local facilities could make independence harder, although transport was available.
“The location and structure of the current building did not reflect the values of Registering the Right Support” from the report
Some records were not dated
minorMonthly care reviews were not always dated. Inspectors said adding dates would help staff follow the records over time.
“These were not always dated however which would help with the continuity of the records.” from the report
Light-switch pull cords
needs fixingSome pull cords were not easy to clean and could provide places for bacteria. The provider said it would look at replacing them.
“There were some pull cords from light switches that may have presented a containment area for bacteria” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the light-switch pull cords since the inspection?
- 02How are you ensuring that every monthly care review is dated and easy for staff and families to follow?
- 03What plans are being considered to improve the building so people have more choice, control and independence?
- 04How does the available transport help residents reach local facilities and take part in community activities?
- 05How will you continue the improvements that led to the rating rising from Requires Improvement to Good?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 March 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Edgeview Nursing Home
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Staffordshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.